- A study from Jharkhand’s Mahuadanr Wolf Sanctuary found that wolf attacks on livestock occurred most likely at night and early morning, during winter and early summer, and near forest edges.
- Despite recurring livestock losses, many households continued to tolerate wolves, reflecting long-standing coexistence.
- The study recommends targeted conflict mitigation, including predator-proof enclosures, improved night-time livestock management and protecting denning habitats.
India’s first wolf sanctuary is an important breeding and denning landscape for the Indian grey wolf. But for the tribal communities living around Mahuadanr Wolf Sanctuary (MWS) in Jharkhand, sharing space with wolves often comes at a cost. A new study has now identified when, where and why wolves are most likely to attack livestock, providing insights that could help reduce conflict while also supporting conservation.
Although Mahuadanr is India’s first designated wolf sanctuary, little scientific research has been conducted there because of limited access to the sanctuary and made sustained fieldwork difficult, says Shahzada Iqbal, member of the Jharkhand State Board for Wildlife, PhD scholar at the Department of Wildlife Sciences, Aligarh Muslim University, and co-author of the study.
“It is unique because it is both a protected area for wolves and a lived-in landscape where tribal communities have shared space with the animals for generations. Livestock depredation is a reality here, yet wolves continue to persist,” Iqbal shares. That makes it an ideal landscape for understanding not only the ecological drivers of conflict but also the human dimensions that determine whether coexistence is possible, he says.
Studying conflict in a shared landscape
Established in 1976, MWS spans more than 63 square kilometres within the southern division of Palamau Tiger Reserve. The sanctuary is a mosaic of sal forests, grasslands, agricultural fields and villages. It is also home to Oraon, Munda and Birjia tribal communities, many of whom depend on farming, livestock rearing and forest resources for their livelihoods.
With wild prey occurring at relatively low densities, wolves in the region rely heavily on domestic livestock, particularly goats and calves.
To understand what drives wolf attacks on livestock, researchers conducted structured interviews with 345 households across 69 villages between 2022 and 2024. The villages were distributed across both the core and buffer zones of MWS and adjoining agricultural landscapes. The questionnaire gathered information on household characteristics, livestock management, grazing practices, attack incidents and economic losses.
To further ensure the accuracy of the data, only respondents who could correctly identify an Indian grey wolf from photographs of similar-looking carnivores were included in the survey. “People here could distinguish wolves from jackals, foxes and feral dogs. Many respondents could even describe individual wolves using distinctive physical or behavioural traits,” confirms Iqbal.
Reported attacks were verified using kill-site evidence and, wherever possible, forest department records before being included in the analysis. The team then combined the household data with GIS-based information on the distance of surveyed households from the sanctuary boundary, rivers, waterholes and known wolf dens before applying statistical models to identify the ecological, spatial and socio-economic factors associated with livestock attacks and economic losses.
Night-time attacks and tolerance from community
The results show that conflict is widespread. More than half of the surveyed households (57.4%) reported losing livestock to wolves. During the study period alone, villagers reported 415 goats killed, resulting in an estimated economic loss of almost ₹21 lakhs (₹2.1 million). On average, affected households lost livestock worth around ₹6,050, and one family lost nine goats, amounting to ₹45,000.
The analysis showed that the time of day, season and location significantly influenced the likelihood of livestock attacks. Most attacks occurred at night and in the early morning and peaked during winter and early summer. According to Iqbal, these patterns reflect “the species’ behavioural ecology and adaptation to human-dominated landscapes”.
A majority of attacks took place in open grazing areas and along forest edges, while fewer were reported near villages or inside enclosed shelters. Households closer to the sanctuary boundary suffered significantly greater economic losses. In contrast, factors such as poverty status, whether a household belonged to the Sarna faith (which has cultural practices which include leaving the forests undisturbed), dog ownership and goat-keeping structures did not significantly influence the magnitude of losses.
While these findings were largely in line with expectations, one result surprised the researchers. “Given that more than half of the surveyed households had experienced livestock losses, I initially expected negative attitudes towards wolves. Instead, we found a remarkable level of tolerance among local communities,” says Iqbal. Many tribal communities continue to view wolves as part of the natural landscape rather than simply as a problem animal. “Mahuadanr demonstrates that coexistence is possible even in a landscape where people and wolves interact frequently,” he adds.
Lessons from a shared landscape
The findings suggest mitigation efforts should focus on villages near the sanctuary boundary, particularly those close to forest edges and grazing grounds. The study also recommends strengthening livestock protection through predator-proof enclosures, improved night-time livestock management and seasonal protection of denning habitats during the winter breeding season.
“The Indian wolf has existed alongside rural communities for centuries and, wherever it persists, has become an inseparable part of the society,” says Devvrat Singh, a conservation biologist, currently working as an independent biologist and consultant and not associated with this study. Communities in wolf landscapes have experienced livestock losses for generations, long before formal compensation or conflict policies existed, creating what he describes as a “generational tolerance”. Wolves are often viewed alongside other familiar wildlife, such as nilgai and macaques, which can also cause occasional losses.
“However, the situation is different when wolves are associated with attacks on people,” he adds, talking about the wolf attacks in Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh last year, where tolerance eroded because of concerns over human safety.
Singh says Mahuadanr also offers lessons for managing conflict elsewhere. Wolf attacks on people have often been linked to disturbance around denning and rendezvous sites during sensitive periods. Protecting these sites and building awareness among local communities can establish a clear “line of control” between people and wolves despite their shared landscape. “Where wolves do not pose a threat to human safety, communities with a long history of living alongside them are more likely to continue tolerating a certain level of livestock loss,” he says.
Iqbal agrees that coexistence cannot be understood through ecology alone. “Conflict is not determined by livestock losses alone; cultural values, historical relationships with wildlife and local perceptions can be equally important in shaping coexistence,” he says. His research team also plans to expand the research using GPS-radio collars, camera traps, genetic analyses and landscape connectivity modelling to better understand wolf movements and evaluate practical conflict mitigation measures such as predator-proof enclosures, improved livestock husbandry and more effective compensation mechanisms.
Banner image: A camera trap image of a wolf and pup. Image courtesy of Jharkhand Forest Department.
Credits
